Church Offers Resources Re: Faith Crisis Issues

[The Nehor]

59 minutes ago, california boy said:

No, my sexual desire never changed one bit.  Sex was more a duty rather than some romantic connection.  And initially I was trying desperately to have happen what Church leaders had promised me.  I remember that first year of marriage especially, thinking that maybe I wasn't trying enough and if I just had more sex, maybe what they promised would happen.  When I suggested to my then wife, she didn't think it was possible to have more sex then we already were having.  By then, we had a child and I felt like I owed it to my child to stay in the marriage.  Maybe that was a bad idea.  Maybe I should have just realized that the promise of becoming straight was never going to happen  and ended my marriage then.  But I did like having children and I still held out some hope that some kind of change would happen.  In the end, I decided to stay in the marriage until the last child left home.  Even in hindsight, I still am not sure what the right decision should have been.  No matter what I decided to do, that decision wasn't going to just effect my life.

Maybe so.  But I also think that Lisa Diamond has no right or authority to define what sexual orientation is either.  And that is kinda my problem of you referencing her as if her definition is agreed upon truth.   You seem to assume that her definition of sexual orientation is universally accepted.  I think people that feel their sexual orientation is fluid self identify as bisexual, which for me, means they are both attracted to romantically as well as emotionally with both sexes. Their partners of both sexes complete them equally.  While a gay person will feel like the romantic and emotional connection is not really working.  If they stay in that relationship, it is because of other reasons like duty, guilt or trying to please someone else.  It is more a forced relationship.  

I don't think most people have any real sense how having that burden lifted feels so freeing and more truthful. That is the message that I get from people who have struggled with this issue.

All of this. People have sex outside of their sexuality for various reasons. There are straight guys who experiment with other guys just to see what it is like. There are lesbians who experiment with guys. Usually people who do this hide it. Women experimenting with other women is okay but straight guys experimenting with guys means being permanently tainted. Same with some lesbian groups where the toxic “gold star lesbian” thing exists. If you are wondering what that is think not being “a licked cupcake” by being with a man and you have a rough idea.

I have an elderly queer couple I know (I dated their daughter for a while) that are mentors to me in some ways. He is gay. She is a lesbian. They married in the 70s to basically be each other’s “beards” and hooked up with others on the side. They ended up having a few children. They are still together primarily for economic reasons though they are friends. They both wish they could have felt safe being with people they are attracted to from the beginning but that wasn’t the hand they were dealt.

By some people’s standards they would be labeled bisexual but they aren’t.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There is something to this. In recent years in cultures where it is acceptable we have a lot of people in heterosexual marriages finally feeling they can say they are bisexual (or pansexual or one of the other terms included in bisexuality). Particularly if you lean more towards heterosexual relationships it was much easier to get into a heterosexual relationship for all kinds of reasons. This does mess with you. Being closeted isn’t pleasant even if from an external viewpoint it would appear meaningless. It isn’t helped by people who assume that a bisexual person in a relationship chose a gender and is now straight or gay. Then there are people who say you can’t know if you are bisexual until you have sex with both genders. Then you point out that means all people are asexual until they prove otherwise and that is silly. So you end up with the only people treated seriously as bisexual are either poly and thus labeled as greedy deviants or are single and it is assumed they will pick a lane eventually.

This is another reason why I don’t like labels, people insisting others match their expectations or they will deny them the use of the label the person wants to use or applies one the person rejects.  Easier to dump the labels. Too often people assume a certain set of behaviours go with each label when there is a lot of variety just caused by environmental factors.  Add in idiosyncratic internal desires that may or may not match external behaviours (my ‘ideal type’ is quite different than my husband’s actual physical appearance because it was much more important and sexually attractive one could say to me to have a husband who wasn’t critical, was playful, and would be a father who wanted to be with his kids for fun) and it gets quite complex. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

No, my sexual desire never changed one bit.

I don’t believe Diamond would define you as bisexual as she recognizes that external behaviour doesn’t always match internal feelings (which is why she uses “desire” in the definition). I see her as looking more at how people choose to fantasize and would act if they have the chance and highly doubt she would ignore the extreme social pressures you and other gay men had and have in the Church and other communities to act heterosexual. 

I know there are some who are highly concerned that using terms like sexually fluid will result in people believing sexual desire is more choice than not and this will be used as a weapon against those who chose to go a different route that the traditional roles of their communities, whatever they are, but that is not what the research shows.  I don’t think one should reject the science based on its misuse, even if it is unfortunately easily misused by those who don’t want to actually understand it. 
 

 

Edited January 7, 2024 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

 

Nevermind 

Edited January 7, 2024 by mfbukowski

[JustAnAustralian]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

People have sex outside of their sexuality for various reasons.

@Hamba Tuhan commented to this effect multiple times over the years in relation to various cultural behaviours.

Edited January 7, 2024 by JustAnAustralian

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

This is another reason why I don’t like labels, people insisting others match their expectations or they will deny them the use of the label the person wants to use or applies one the person rejects.  Easier to dump the labels. Too often people assume a certain set of behaviours go with each label when there is a lot of variety just caused by environmental factors.  Add in idiosyncratic internal desires that may or may not match external behaviours (my ‘ideal type’ is quite different than my husband’s actual physical appearance because it was much more important and sexually attractive one could say to me to have a husband who wasn’t critical, was playful, and would be a father who wanted to be with his kids for fun) and it gets quite complex. 

The general labels are valuable. They convey who a person will potentially be interested in. Some of the more specific ones get silly. If you want to have fun get in the middle of a discussion of the meanings of bisexual and pansexual and the distinctions between them. There are so many definitions for each one that they end up talking past each other. I think they should just be merged and split the difference and call everyone who fits in them pisexuals. You can claim interest in 3.1415 genders but the number is also infinite and non-repeating so you can argue it includes all possible genders. Plus we get a bunch of math based and dessert based puns to play with. And the jokes about pansexuals and cookware will go away and the incorrect reading of bisexual as limiting themselves to two genders will go away.

Edited January 7, 2024 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

@Hamba Tuhan commented to this effect multiple times over the years in relation to various cultural behaviours.

Yeah, most of the time when I see it it is due to curiosity or a desire for fulfillment of a specific fetish or kink which I guess qualify as cultural behaviors.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If you want to have fun get in the middle of a discussion of the meanings of bisexual and pansexual and the distinctions between them.

I have had that discussion with my daughter. 

[Anonymous Mormon]

20 hours ago, california boy said:

I think a LOT of the kind of identification Lisa Diamond makes is how being gay, straight or bisexual is defined.  Not everyone has the same definitions.  For example, some believe that if a man has sex with a woman, then they must be straight.  I was married to a woman for over 20 years and have 5 children. Was my orientation during that time straight simply because I was in that relationship? Absolutely not.  I never considered myself straight or even bisexual during that whole time.  I would describe my relationship with my wife as a friendship that was forced into a marriage by pressure from the Church.  Lisa Diamond and many others, including men in the same situation would probably label me as bisexual.  But there was nothing bisexual about me.  I have never been attracted to women.   I really only connected with other men in any meaningful way.  I am clearly 100% gay.  I knew that I was gay at 12 years old long before I had sex with anyone. and hated that I was different.Could I have a relationship with a woman?  Yes.  Would that change my orientation?  Nope.  

@california boy - Thank you for being vulnerable and willing to share your story. 

It helps me better understand and see how you felt 'forced into a marriage by pressure from the Church.' And thus you decided to leave your marriage and temple covenants to pursue a more meaningful life and relationships.

However, lots of straight people also have sexuality issues in their marriages. They also felt pressured into marriage from the church because they didn't want to break the law of chastity when dating, so instead of dating more people or testing the waters to see if they were sexually compatible with the people they dated, they got married. 

Here are some examples of real-world situations that straight men are going through in their marriages:

• A straight man is no longer sexually attracted to his wife because she has gained 40 pounds in the 10 years they have been married. He feels they are just business partners raising kids.
• A straight man is no longer sexually fulfilled because his wife only wants to have sex infrequently. He feels they are just business partners raising kids. 
• A straight man feels that the church's policy on pornography is wrong and that pornography and masturbation is 'normative behavior' but his wife is offended and cries every time he does it and then refuses to be sexually intimate with him for a while after because she 'emotionally can't connect with someone who is looking at other women.' He does not want to continue to feel pressured to stop doing what is normal and healthy (i.e., viewing pornography)
• A straight man in his 30s who has been married for 10 years feels the church robbed him from sexually exploring and feels unfulfilled sexually and is debating leaving his wife to seek true sexual fulfillment by having lots of partners and varied sexual experiences
• Etc.

 

Do you feel the above situations are different than someone LGBT like your own?

The reason I ask is not to attack you or compare your situation to something that you think is unfair, but because whenever the conversation of sexuality comes up I feel like everyone agrees the law of chastity is fine for straight people, but then when someone is LGBT they get a different standard on law of chastity issues. It's like someone on the board once said (I think Hamba Tumba) that in their area when guys struggle with the law of chastity they simply claim they are bisexual, and then people (dating prospects, church leaders, etc.) give them more of a pass for their sexual sins than if they are just a straight guy 'messing up' because LGBT means your sexuality is more complex and thus not under the normal law of chastity rules.

So how (if at all) do you feel like your situation is different and unique compared to the ones I shared above, since you are LGBT? Or said another way, if your child came to you with the above situations, when would you counsel them to leave their wives and kids and when would you counsel them that they should try to continue to not live to their full sexual fulfilment?

[california boy]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t believe Diamond would define you as bisexual as she recognizes that external behaviour doesn’t always match internal feelings (which is why she uses “desire” in the definition). I see her as looking more at how people choose to fantasize and would act if they have the chance and highly doubt she would ignore the extreme social pressures you and other gay men had and have in the Church and other communities to act heterosexual. 

I know there are some who are highly concerned that using terms like sexually fluid will result in people believing sexual desire is more choice than not and this will be used as a weapon against those who chose to go a different route that the traditional roles of their communities, whatever they are, but that is not what the research shows.  I don’t think one should reject the science based on its misuse, even if it is unfortunately easily misused by those who don’t want to actually understand it. 

I disagree.  I think her premise of what sexual orientation is completely wrong. Too many people I have met have known their orientation very early in life, even if they didn't understand that orientation.  There is a coffee table book I read a number of years ago titled "I Knew I Was Gay When".  It records when 100 guys first realized they were gay.  Most of the stories occurred long before they even knew what a gay person was and long before being openly gay was a realistic option for those recording their experiences.  

Again, fantasizing about trying out some sexual act does not mean your orientation is fluid.   People try sexual fantasies all the time like perhaps having a threesome.  It doesn't mean anything other than the just want to see what it is like.  Far more people have tried threesomes than actually stay in them.  

It isn't science if you prove an answer to your definition of what sexual orientation is isn't really a true definition of sexual orientation.  That is what I am rejecting, not her data.  What she has proven is that people fantasize on things and occasionally act on those fantasies.  Yes, that is true.  But what people fantasize about is not really the standard for determining sexual orientation.  The reason why so many LGBT people push against the idea that sexuality is fluid is because that is not their experience.  What LGBT have gone through throughout history and even today, including prison and even being murdered loudly speaks against the idea that sexual orientation is fluid and a choice.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

@california boy - Thank you for being vulnerable and willing to share your story. 

It helps me better understand and see how you felt 'forced into a marriage by pressure from the Church.' And thus you decided to leave your marriage and temple covenants to pursue a more meaningful life and relationships.

However, lots of straight people also have sexuality issues in their marriages. They also felt pressured into marriage from the church because they didn't want to break the law of chastity when dating, so instead of dating more people or testing the waters to see if they were sexually compatible with the people they dated, they got married. 

Here are some examples of real-world situations that straight men are going through in their marriages:

• A straight man is no longer sexually attracted to his wife because she has gained 40 pounds in the 10 years they have been married. He feels they are just business partners raising kids.
• A straight man is no longer sexually fulfilled because his wife only wants to have sex infrequently. He feels they are just business partners raising kids. 
• A straight man feels that the church's policy on pornography is wrong and that pornography and masturbation is 'normative behavior' but his wife is offended and cries every time he does it and then refuses to be sexually intimate with him for a while after because she 'emotionally can't connect with someone who is looking at other women.' He does not want to continue to feel pressured to stop doing what is normal and healthy (i.e., viewing pornography)
• A straight man in his 30s who has been married for 10 years feels the church robbed him from sexually exploring and feels unfulfilled sexually and is debating leaving his wife to seek true sexual fulfillment by having lots of partners and varied sexual experiences
• Etc.

 

Do you feel the above situations are different than someone LGBT like your own?

The reason I ask is not to attack you or compare your situation to something that you think is unfair, but because whenever the conversation of sexuality comes up I feel like everyone agrees the law of chastity is fine for straight people, but then when someone is LGBT they get a different standard on law of chastity issues. It's like someone on the board once said (I think Hamba Tumba) that in their area when guys struggle with the law of chastity they simply claim they are bisexual, and then people (dating prospects, church leaders, etc.) give them more of a pass for their sexual sins than if they are just a straight guy 'messing up' because LGBT means your sexuality is more complex and thus not under the normal law of chastity rules.

So how (if at all) do you feel like your situation is different and unique compared to the ones I shared above, since you are LGBT? Or said another way, if your child came to you with the above situations, when would you counsel them to leave their wives and kids and when would you counsel them that they should try to continue to not live to their full sexual fulfilment?

Church leaders told me that if I just get married, I would no longer be gay.  I asked them if that was just their opinion or if God was making that promise to me.  They told me that it was a promise from God.  Choosing to marry was a huge decision for me.  I wasn't marrying because I wanted to have sex.  I was marrying because I was told that is the will of God.  I hated being gay.  I would have done almost anything to be straight and not have to carry that burden.  The decision to marry was built on a false promise. Should Church leaders bare any responsibility for my failed marriage?  I have a feeling that those Church leaders are going to have more to answer for in the deception they practiced using his name than me leaving my marriage.  That is quite a different reason for leaving a marriage than my wife got fat.   If God would have kept his end of the covenant, and  I did become straight, then I would still be in my marriage.  Yes being LGBT is definitely a different situation.  

Even that false promise being set aside, I don't think you have any idea what it is like to live your life as a total lie.  During my whole marriage, people including my family would tell me they loved me, that I was such a great guy, a good friend.  But in my mind, I would always wonder "If they knew I was gay, would they still think I was a great guy?  Would they still want me to be their friend?  Would they still love me.  It made me not trust anyone's love because they didn't know how I really was.  When I came out, those fears all proved to be true.  While I was very prominent in my ward, including being in a bishopric and high counselor, only 4 people in my ward ever talked to me again.  My siblings and father didn't invite me to any family events including baptisms, missionary farewells of my nephews, family reunions, for 13 years.  Those scars are still very deep.  I still have a lot of difficulty trusting other peoples love.   Do you think the situations you mentioned are similar?  

ETA

I want to add, my situation is not unique to me.  If it was, I probably wouldn't bother even posting on this discussion group.  There are thousands of these marriages that happened.  I remember reading an article in "Sunstone" about a BYU professor that did research on these mixed marriages.  I haven't ever been able to find the article, but if I remember right, he followed 500 mixed marriages.  After 5 years, only a handful were still married.  It was this study that finally pushed President Hinkley to say "Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices."  That was a game changer and finally put an end to this practice.

Edited January 7, 2024 by california boy

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, california boy said:

Far more people have tried threesomes than actually stay in them.  

Of course. And I doubt she would see experimenting as definite as you seem to think.  I think you are overstating her conclusions and what they are intended to define as opposed to making observations of behaviour, but I am not up for another dive into her work at this point.

I am fine with letting people define themselves as they want as long as they don’t turn around and insist others must accept their standard when then won’t do the same. 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

idea that sexual orientation is fluid and a choice.

That you link sexual fluidity with choice indicates to me you are thinking of someone else’s conclusions and not hers, perhaps someone who has used her data and claimed that those are the only implications of it. It has been awhile, but I am pretty sure she is very clear she does not define fluidity as meaning there are choices to be attracted a certain way for some period of time and then a choice to change, etc  

Nor does she suggest that there isn’t a significant number who are not fluid, who are clear from the beginning what their attraction is (her data is bell curved, though skewed of course on the heterosexual side iirc, both ends are not fluid).

Edited January 8, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

 

The reason I ask is not to attack you or compare your situation to something that you think is unfair, but because whenever the conversation of sexuality comes up I feel like everyone agrees the law of chastity is fine for straight people, but then when someone is LGBT they get a different standard on law of chastity issues. It's like someone on the board once said (I think Hamba Tumba) that in their area when guys struggle with the law of chastity they simply claim they are bisexual, and then people (dating prospects, church leaders, etc.) give them more of a pass for their sexual sins than if they are just a straight guy 'messing up' because LGBT means your sexuality is more complex and thus not under the normal law of chastity rules.

You are seriously arguing that LGBT people in the church get a pass on sexuality in the church and have it easier? What the hell?

Their dates give them a pass on bisexuality? Where is this bisexual Valhalla? I want to live there. This sounds like rubbish. It seems like the same kind of reasoning used about how men are actually a very disadvantaged gender or that white people in the United States are actually the most oppressed ethnic group based on vague theorizing about how things might work to someone’s advantage but usually don’t.

I like my sexuality but the idea that society in general somehow makes it easier for me is ridiculous. The idea that the church and its members are bending over backwards to accommodate me is downright laughable.

3 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:Here are some examples of real-world situations that straight men are going through in their marriages:

 

• A straight man is no longer sexually attracted to his wife because she has gained 40 pounds in the 10 years they have been married. He feels they are just business partners raising kids.
• A straight man is no longer sexually fulfilled because his wife only wants to have sex infrequently. He feels they are just business partners raising kids. 
• A straight man feels that the church's policy on pornography is wrong and that pornography and masturbation is 'normative behavior' but his wife is offended and cries every time he does it and then refuses to be sexually intimate with him for a while after because she 'emotionally can't connect with someone who is looking at other women.' He does not want to continue to feel pressured to stop doing what is normal and healthy (i.e., viewing pornography)
• A straight man in his 30s who has been married for 10 years feels the church robbed him from sexually exploring and feels unfulfilled sexually and is debating leaving his wife to seek true sexual fulfillment by having lots of partners and varied sexual experiences
• Etc.

None of that is being closeted and having to hide your sexuality. They aren’t the same. These situations are difficult and potentially tragic but they aren’t the same. 

Quote

Do you feel the above situations are different than someone LGBT like your own?

Yes. I am not arguing that being closeted is always worse than these situations but the type of situation is completely different.

[MrShorty]

I feel like I'm out of the loop a bit, but decided I would add a response to some earlier threads in the discussion

On 1/3/2024 at 11:35 AM, smac97 said:

There are certainly times in which "public dissent" is a necessary and good thing.  Is it possible, though, that there are times when it is not?

Yes to both. Sometimes public dissent is a good thing, and sometimes it is not. I'm not sure why one would thing from my comments here or elsewhere that I cannot see any nuance in the topic and am somehow insisting that every church class or meeting or forum should be a completely open forum. Even if I think there could be a balance, I cannot think of any in person public meeting I have ever attended in church when hard topics were addressed in any kind of thorough or complete way. If there is a balance, and the church is currently out of balance, which way is the church leaning?

I just finished listening to an apologetics type video featuring Ben Spackman (Mormonism with the Murph on youtube, if you are interested in looking it up). Of course, Spackman's expertise is specifically regarding creationism, evolution, and our history around those topics with how we read Genesis. One part of the conversation that stood out to me (about the 90th minute, give or take, if you want to hear it from Spackman) was how "loyalty" to the brethren played a part in that mid-20th century "fundamentalist shift." As Spackman describes the account, in the mid-20th century, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R, McConkie, and others (mostly leaning on JFS and BRM) there were many publications claiming that belief in the gospel and the church was incompatible with a belief in evolution. Spackman notes that Pres. McKay and other church officials were uncomfortable with these seemingly authoritative declarations, but were persuaded not to respond publicly. They either tried to deal with the issues privately or ignore them. There was, apparently, some feelings of "loyalty" that persuaded the church not to make bold statements against the bold statements being made by these brethren. As we all know, in the absence of any direct contradiction -- because of the loyalty that @smac97 and Pres. Oaks and others seem to value so highly -- many people (Murphy and Spackman and myself and many others) there were many of my generation who grew up believing that creationism was the official position of the church. Even up until somewhere in the last decade, debates around evolution, death before the fall, and related have been among the most contentious I have seen in the church.

Maybe the point I really want to make is that you are completely correct. As the Ecclisiast might say, there is a time to publicly debate gospel topics and a time to bite your tongue. I'm not convinced that we as church are very good at discerning appropriate times for each.

[BlueDreams]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

That you link sexual fluidity with choice indicates to me you are thinking of someone else’s conclusions and not hers, perhaps someone who has used her data and claimed that those are the only implications of it. It has been awhile, but I am pretty sure she is very clear she does not define fluidity as meaning there are choices to be attracted a certain way for some period of time and then a choice to change, etc  

Nor does she suggest that there isn’t a significant number who are not fluid, who are clear from the beginning what their attraction is. 

You're not wrong. She tries to be clear about that....though she also recognized there are a few who kinda do-ish (always with overt denunciations for anyone who uses these examples to insist their gay relative/friend should be able to as well). I can't remember where I heard it, but she gave an example of a woman who really loved and wanted to be wholly part of the lesbian community though she was more naturally straight....over time she did just that. I want to say that person is her wife, but I can't fully remember. For those even like this rarer case, she'd probably note that the fludity isn't necessarily fully controlled as "choice" usually suggests. And it can entail just about every sexual/intimate behavior: From fantasy, to erotic encounters, to longer term relationships. That Identity and behavior are not necessarily congruous all the time. She would both recognize that there are those who are more set and have minimal to no fluidity (what CB is describing...I'd put myself in that category, but straight) and those that are far more fluid. I've listened to her present her data in a few different venues (both CEU's and more public arenas). I find it interesting and nuanced each time I've listened. 

Personally it makes sense to me. For the older gen especially - living in an extremely rigid expectation that everyone should fit in a straight relationship - the ones with a more fixed orientation that was L or G would be the ones most likely to come out. This defined the early narrative. By GenZ, sexual id is more acceptably explored...which means people who wouldn't have initially been apart of the early gay rights movement are now exploring and expressing themselves within the queer umbrella more. And their experiences and journey to self-expression are likely to differ from ones that are more fixed. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[Calm]

Thanks, BD, for the summary.  That is what my memory of my conclusions matched, nice to know I hadn’t wandered off.   

[The Nehor]

In terms of fluidity bisexual people have this a lot. We call it the bi-cycle. And yes, there are thousands of jokes about it that involve bicycles. The bi-cycle is something that many but not all bisexuals experience whether their attractions to genders shift over time. In some cases they worry they are gay/lesbian and then a few months later worry that they are straight. There is a joke in the bisexual community that being very confused and unsure about your sexuality is a strong indicator of bisexuality.

When someone first accepts that they are bisexual they sometimes experience a huge flood of attraction to the gender they have been denying themselves. It has been called “second puberty”. When I finally confessed to myself what I was and got through the tears I found that for the next six months I was a boy-crazy slut. My attraction to women was basically gone. The only woman I still found attractive was my then-gf. After about six months that attraction to women just popped back up again and I swung towards preferring women and then back and forth. It has mostly calmed down now and I just like both. It is hard to study this since it is so subjective but my anecdotal experience based on my own and the experience of others is that for those who do bi-cycle accepting your bisexuality on an inner level tends to level out the cycle. There are a lot of theories behind why this all happens but it is hard to figure out. For those who are in a monogamous relationship love often overrides the bi-cycle enough to keep the attraction to the person you love.

I have seen sexual fluidity happen but it isn’t controllable in any reliable way and the changes are usually not extreme. Usually it involves a shift in preferences amongst people who already identify as bisexual. Sometimes you will see someone who identifies as straight or gay switch to bisexual as they develop a usually more limited attraction to the gender they weren’t interested in before. To be clear by “limited” I don’t mean that they are only capable of shallow relationships. I mean that they tend to find less men or women attractive. Bisexual people are often much more limited in their attraction to all genders than monosexual people. We tend to have types. Straight and gay people do too but their types seem more expansive.

I have said before that I suspect that the idea that being gay is a choice sounds to me like it was a conclusion reached by a very closeted bisexual person. We tend to be fluid but not in the way that people that want to “fix” us or reassure themselves that if their loved one would just try to change they can become “normal”. I detest it when people who dislike us weaponize our reality against us as a bludgeon to say we are at fault. And I feel bad for my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters that have to deal with the spilloff of these twisted interpretations of us.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

the changes are usually not extreme

My memory is this goes along with what Diamond and others have found…as well as everything else you described. 
 

Edited January 8, 2024 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

In terms of fluidity bisexual people have this a lot. We call it the bi-cycle. And yes, there are thousands of jokes about it that involve bicycles. The bi-cycle is something that many but not all bisexuals experience whether their attractions to genders shift over time. In some cases they worry they are gay/lesbian and then a few months later worry that they are straight. There is a joke in the bisexual community that being very confused and unsure about your sexuality is a strong indicator of bisexuality.

When someone first accepts that they are bisexual they sometimes experience a huge flood of attraction to the gender they have been denying themselves. It has been called “second puberty”. When I finally confessed to myself what I was and got through the tears I found that for the next six months I was a boy-crazy slut. My attraction to women was basically gone. The only woman I still found attractive was my then-gf. After about six months that attraction to women just popped back up again and I swung towards preferring women and then back and forth. It has mostly calmed down now and I just like both. It is hard to study this since it is so subjective but my anecdotal experience based on my own and the experience of others is that for those who do bi-cycle accepting your bisexuality on an inner level tends to level out the cycle. There are a lot of theories behind why this all happens but it is hard to figure out. For those who are in a monogamous relationship love often overrides the bi-cycle enough to keep the attraction to the person you love.

I have seen sexual fluidity happen but it isn’t controllable in any reliable way and the changes are usually not extreme. Usually it involves a shift in preferences amongst people who already identify as bisexual. Sometimes you will see someone who identifies as straight or gay switch to bisexual as they develop a usually more limited attraction to the gender they weren’t interested in before. To be clear by “limited” I don’t mean that they are only capable of shallow relationships. I mean that they tend to find less men or women attractive. Bisexual people are often much more limited in their attraction to all genders than monosexual people. We tend to have types. Straight and gay people do too but their types seem more expansive.

I have said before that I suspect that the idea that being gay is a choice sounds to me like it was a conclusion reached by a very closeted bisexual person. We tend to be fluid but not in the way that people that want to “fix” us or reassure themselves that if their loved one would just try to change they can become “normal”. I detest it when people who dislike us weaponize our reality against us as a bludgeon to say we are at fault. And I feel bad for my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters that have to deal with the spilloff of these twisted interpretations of us.

Thanks. Very insightful post. 

[filovirus]

On 1/6/2024 at 4:04 AM, Meadowchik said:

And yet people can grow up in the church, raise their children in it, and then leave conscientiously and still be good people, even while no longer believing in any messiah. 

People can be good while believing in any number of things. And truth can be found in every corner of the earth, not just inside the LDS religion. However, the CoJCoLDS offers things that no other religion or place on earth offers at this moment. Namely, the sealing power from heaven in the form of priesthood, and a method to make sacred covenants with God that lead to blessings in the hereafter. Many people are actively or even subtly trying to thwart people's access to these promises by creating an atmosphere of doubt and denial.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, filovirus said:

People can be good while believing in any number of things. And truth can be found in every corner of the earth, not just inside the LDS religion. However, the CoJCoLDS offers things that no other religion or place on earth offers at this moment. Namely, the sealing power from heaven in the form of priesthood, and a method to make sacred covenants with God that lead to blessings in the hereafter. Many people are actively or even subtly trying to thwart people's access to these promises by creating an atmosphere of doubt and denial.

Are "many" trying to "thwart" that or do they just not believe in them? Thwart suggests they do believe, but don't want other people to have those blessings. I would guess there are few people who fit that.

Edited January 8, 2024 by Rain

[filovirus]

26 minutes ago, Rain said:

Are "many" trying to "thwart" that or do they just not believe in them? Twarr suggests they do believe, but don't want other people to have those blessings. I would guess there are few people who fit that.

Does it matter? Either way, the CoJCoLDS is finally addressing the problem that people can have serious doubts that have consequences for their eternal promises. It is giving us guidance on how to reach out to those with tough questions.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, filovirus said:

Does it matter?

For the people involved it sure does.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, filovirus said:

Does it matter? Either way, the CoJCoLDS is finally addressing the problem that people can have serious doubts that have consequences for their eternal promises. It is giving us guidance on how to reach out to those with tough questions.

It definitely matters, especially if you are talking about the resources the church just put out.  If you label unbelieving people as thwarters when they are family members, friends fellow ward members you automatically set up walls which breaks down relationships completely going against these new resources.

Edited January 8, 2024 by Rain